Support NeoGAF

[iapetus]

I never accused you of lying. But you are either exaggerating or blind to the reality. Perhaps you might consider that worse than being accused of lying.

Regardless, what an uncivil response on your behalf.

I said:

When it comes to the debate here, I see pretty much the same level of irrationality from both sides at times.

Your response to that contains the throwaway '(even if it were true)'.

The only way that can be untrue is if I haven't seen the same level of irrationality from both sides at times. I don't appreciate you telling me what I've seen, especially when the level of bloody-minded refusal to accept clear and rational logic is one of the things that frustrates me most about a certain category of regular NeoGAF atheists who really ought to know better.

 

[Mario]

The only way that can be untrue is if I haven't seen the same level of irrationality from both sides at times. I don't appreciate you telling me what I've seen, especially when the level of bloody-minded refusal to accept clear and rational logic is one of the things that frustrates me most about a certain category of regular NeoGAF atheists who really ought to know better.

You've been challenged to demonstrate that

When it comes to the debate here, I see pretty much the same level of irrationality from both sides at times.

A lot of people see this as a debate between irrational theism and rational atheism, but a lot of the atheists are willing to throw away rationality for this debate.

are true. I don't think you can.

If you consider such a charge on my behalf an accusation you are lying, then so be it.

 

[iapetus]

That's why I much prefer reading these discussions online, where it's obvious when your argument has already been raised and countered in the past to the extent that it no longer is relevant.

It also gets rid of the tactic of springing carefully cherry-picked facts/statistics/references on your opponent without them having the chance to validate what you're claiming, which seems to be a staple of less-than-honest debaters. Given the time to check sources, this becomes a much less useful approach.

With that said, there doesn't seem to be any new arguments

I don't think there are any new arguments really, especially on the atheist side of the fence (the theists do more squirming looking for new approaches, or this is the impression I get).

 

[SquiddyCracker]

It also gets rid of the tactic of springing carefully cherry-picked facts/statistics/references on your opponent without them having the chance to validate what you're claiming, which seems to be a staple of less-than-honest debaters. Given the time to check sources, this becomes a much less useful approach.

I feel this is even more relevant in political debates.

Verbal debates in general seem to be an antiquated practice, as far as truth-seeking is concerned (great way of convincing people though!).

 

[iapetus]

You've been challenged to demonstrate that

When it comes to the debate here, I see pretty much the same level of irrationality from both sides at times.

are true. I don't think you can.

I've cut down to the quote I took offense at your response to. Since all I need to do is point to a single case of willful and extreme irrationality by atheists on NeoGAF to demonstrate the point, I shall simply mention the time that happyfunball stated that although he understands that A => B does not mean that B => A, he feels that this can be ignored when discussing religion. This is not the only case of irrationality I've seen, of course.

 

[Erigu]

the level of bloody-minded refusal to accept clear and rational logic is one of the things that frustrates me most about a certain category of regular NeoGAF atheists who really ought to know better.

I'd still be interested in some examples.

EDIT:

the time that happyfunball stated that although he understands that A => B does not mean that B => A, he feels that this can be ignored when discussing religion.

Thank you.
Can't say the name rings a bell... Was it in this topic? Is the "certain category of NeoGAF atheists" you mentioned posting here?

 

[iapetus]

I'd still be interested in some examples.

As above. See also some very tenuous arguments relating to burden of proof (that the burden of proof is not on the person making the claim if the claim can be phrased in particular ways, despite the fact that opposing sides of the same argument can both be represented in that way).

 

[Erigu]

See also some very tenuous arguments relating to burden of proof (that the burden of proof is not on the person making the claim if the claim can be phrased in particular ways, despite the fact that opposing sides of the same argument can both be represented in that way).

Huh. What was the discussion about? Do we at least agree that the burden of proof for the existence of God is on the person making the claim he does exist?

 

[iapetus]

Really? Like what?

You're one step behind my edits again.

 

[Mario]

I've cut down to the quote I took offense at your response to. Since all I need to do is point to a single case of willful and extreme irrationality by atheists on NeoGAF to demonstrate the point, I shall simply mention the time that happyfunball stated that although he understands that A => B does not mean that B => A, he feels that this can be ignored when discussing religion. This is not the only case of irrationality I've seen, of course.

I'm happy to admit that I missed the "at times" in my initial response.

That still didn't require a "fuck you" response from you, even if only offered as a secondary retort.

 

[Erigu]

You're one step behind my edits again.

So annoying! ^^

 

[iapetus]

I'm happy to admit that I missed the "at times" in my initial response.

That still didn't require a "fuck you" response from you, even if only offered as a secondary retort.

The "fuck you" was conditional on you not having misread, and the assumption that you misread took priority over the fuck you. It was meant in a more jokey way than it probably came across, and I apologise for that. I disagree that your response as written didn't merit a "fuck you", though. What you wrote implied that I was lying or wrong about what I had seen. I consider that highly offensive - more so than "fuck you".

 

[Dice]

Another huge benefit to text debate is that when your opponent uses a semantic shift to strawman you, it's not considered a tangent for you to clarify that because you aren't pressured by time to answer the three points he made at the same time.

Like in this discussion the Cardinal tries to spin alternating definitions of "why" on Dawkins. This point here is the last time in the little spat where he cheaply tosses it in last second when Dawkins has already clarified. The whole session is garbage because it's filled with that crap, yet you wouldn't be able to get away with any of it in text.

Verbal debates in general seem to be an antiquated practice, as far as truth-seeking is concerned (great way of convincing people though!).

Well, back in the golden days of the practice, the distinguished men would verbally debate all day every day. That's a bit different from a one hour match upon first meeting the person. I'm pretty sure they only did it because written communication was such a bitch back then, too.

 

[SquiddyCracker]

Yeah, that's why I have no interest in real-life debates.
At best, it will be a poor attempt of poking holes at the consistency of your opponent.

 

[Ashes]

There was this one poster who thought god really was an old man [according to Christians]. When I told him that it was more of a symbolic representation [perhaps] , and that that Christian don't think of God as a really old man, and so asked him to provide proof. I think he called me a dumb ass and raged on for a bit. Then he showed me pictures. pictures.


You know, Christian paintings. google images.

 

[Rapstah]

There are probably theists who literally view God as an old guy in the clouds, but they wouldn't typically be those you find on an internet forum arguing about it.

 

[Ashes]

Also, if the burden of proof is on a person making a claim, and athiests aren't making claim, how are 'some' athiests 99% certain that god doesn't exist?

Isn't the neutral/default answer that we don't know?

99% is pretty sure. heck, normally, it's all but certainty. I'm 99% sure I'm typing this. You should be a little less sure that the usual 'ashes' is typing this, but it is reasonable to assume that it is ashes1396 - instead of somebody else typing under my username.

Still, we only need one smart aleck to come in and say they are more sure that the normal ashes is typing this, than the idea that god exists.

And yet, noone, is making a claim.

There are probably theists who literally view God as an old guy in the clouds, but they wouldn't typically be those you find on an internet forum arguing about it.

I suppose so. Still, using images to prove his point, and disprove the argument about symbolic representation made me smile.

 

[Log4Girlz]

Also, if the burden of proof is on a person making a claim, and athiests aren't making claim, how are 'some' athiests 99% certain that god doesn't exist?

Isn't the neutral/default answer that we don't know?

99% is pretty sure. heck, normally, it's all but certainty. I'm 99% sure I'm typing this. You should be a little less sure that the usual 'ashes' is typing this, but it is reasonable to assume that it is ashes1396 - instead of somebody else typing under my username.

Still, we only need one smart aleck to come in and say they are more sure that the normal ashes is typing this, than the idea that god exists.

And yet, noone, is making a claim.

To many atheists God is a completely imaginary being no different to any other made up being. It would be like saying that stating "There are no leprechauns" is a claim. Perhaps technically it is, but most people have no problem just regarding it as fact as we do many other similar claims. Like for instance, there are no kittens in the center of the moon. Perhaps the "neutral" stance should be that you do not know if there are kittens in the center of the moon or not, as there is no evidence there isn't, but I also would not blame anyone believing with absolute certainty there isn't.

 

[Ashes]

To many atheists God is a completely imaginary being no different to any other made up being. It would be like saying that saying "There are no leprechauns" is a claim. Perhaps technically it is, but most people have no problem just regarding it as fact as we do many other similar claims. Like for instance, there are no kittens in the center of the moon. Perhaps the "neutral" stance should be that you do not know if there are kittens in the center of the moon or not, as there is no evidence there isn't, but I also would not blame anyone believing with absolute certainty there isn't.

That's kinda irrational mate.

 

[Log4Girlz]

That's kinda irrational mate.

How so? Why does the "neutral" position have to be "I don't know" to questions about imaginary beings and concepts?

 

[Erigu]

That's kinda irrational mate.

How confident are you that there no kittens in the center of the moon? Fifty/fifty?
Is it really irrational to deem that proposition pretty damn unlikely, considering what we know about the world around us?

Now, apply that to the idea that all that stuff about Jesus in the Bible is factual. Water turning into wine, bread multiplying, and so on.

 

[Necromanti]

Also, if the burden of proof is on a person making a claim, and athiests aren't making claim, how are 'some' athiests 99% certain that god doesn't exist?

I guess it would be disingenuous to try to generalize such a broad group of thought, but my own views are as follows. My position is that we do not know if there is a higher power of a god of sorts, but that the ones espoused by human religion are highly improbable (and ergo, considered "non-existent").

 

[Ashes]

How confident are you that there no kittens in the center of the moon? Fifty/fifty?
Is it really irrational to deem that proposition pretty damn unlikely?

I have no problem being irrational. You do. If you want to remain consistent.

Admittedly, not all examples are analogous to one another. If a person were to say they were 99% certain that there was no alien life forms of any kind in the wider universe for example.

 

[Erigu]

I have no problem being irrational. You do. If you want to remain consistent.

Wut.

If a person were to say they were 99% certain that there was no alien life forms of any kind in the wider universe for example.

Yeah, I don't know about that one. I do think the possibility is there ("there's life here, there could be life elsewhere"), but how do you come up with numbers when life hasn't been discovered elsewhere (yet?)?

 

[Log4Girlz]

I have no problem being irrational. You do. If you want to remain consistent.

Admittedly, not all examples are analogous to one another. If a person were to say they were 99% certain that there was no alien life forms of any kind in the wider universe for example.

Life in the universe is not a fabrication. The concept of god has all the hallmarks of one. To assume there is no other life in the universe is an irrational assumption given everything we know, though it is not impossible, merely highly improbable. The concept of a god is irrational and illogical in nature and there is no precedent in existence that would allow such a concept to exist. Assuming a god does not exist is not irrational and neither is dismissing any other fabricated imaginary beings or concepts.

 

[V_Arnold]

I guess it would be disingenuous to try to generalize such a broad group of thought, but my own views are as follows. My position is that we do not know if there is a higher power of a god of sorts, but that the ones espoused by human religion are highly improbable (and ergo, considered "non-existent").

There are so many different religions that I find this sweeping statement quite irrational. Not every religion has a bearded, angry old man shouting from the skies.

Life in the universe is not a fabrication. The concept of god has all the hallmarks of one. To assume there is no other life in the universe is an irrational assumption given everything we know, though it is not impossible, merely highly improbable. The concept of a god is irrational and illogical in nature and there is no precedent in existence that would allow such a concept to exist. Assuming a god does not exist is not irrational and neither is dismissing any other fabricated imaginary beings or concepts.

Blind dismissal is irrational if your dogma is peer reviewed studies and evidence. To not see this clearly is a sign of zealotry.
If you REALLY value your beloved science, you shut up about these beings "absolutely, one hundred percent not exisiting", and go on with your life, making an educated guess - but not a complete dismissal.

 

[SquiddyCracker]

I'm fine with the "default" position being either "doesn't exist" or "don't know". It's just a semantic issue I'm willing to skip, as either interpretation is functionally the same.

The God entity is nonetheless in the same category as leprechauns or moon kittens, unlike, say, Abraham Lincoln

 

[Log4Girlz]

I'm fine with the "default" position being either "doesn't exist" or "don't know". It's just a semantic issue I'm willing to skip, as either interpretation is functionally the same.

The God entity is nonetheless in the same category as leprechauns or moon kittens, unlike, say, Abraham Lincoln

I'm not so sure about Abe come to think of it.

 

[Ashes]

How so? Why does the "neutral" position have to be "I don't know" to questions about imaginary beings and concepts?

Is that a serious question?

ok. er... because we don't know.

I suppose you can identify a middle ground. Would a reasonable person assume something, such or the other.

Arguably 99 per centers suffer from cognitive dissonance for a person who doesn't want to say out loud that they do indeed believe something. Well, not until hell freezes over.

 

[SquiddyCracker]

I'm not so sure about Abe come to think of it.

Oh, and he is in an altogether different category existence wise compared to planet earth.

We know that the earth exist with super high certainty, we know that Abe most likely existed, but we have nothing supporting the existence of any hypothetical God entity.


Practically speaking, we can say that earth and Abe is/was real whereas God isn't.

 

[Necromanti]

There are so many different religions that I find this sweeping statement quite irrational. Not every religion has a bearded, angry old man shouting from the skies.

But they all attribute characteristics, tales, or behaviors to beings that cannot be evidenced except through the specific modes of communication they had chosen to use, like a (very human) holy text or mouthpiece, which is to be believed through...faith. If we choose to forsake evidence, we could believe nearly anything we put our minds to.

 

[phisheep]

Life in the universe is not a fabrication. The concept of god has all the hallmarks of one. To assume there is no other life in the universe is an irrational assumption given everything we know, though it is not impossible, merely highly improbable. The concept of a god is irrational and illogical in nature and there is no precedent in existence that would allow such a concept to exist. Assuming a god does not exist is not irrational and neither is dismissing any other fabricated imaginary beings or concepts.

I'm not really sure that is true. Plenty of irrational, illogical concepts turned out to exist. Wave/particle duality for one, powered flight, consciousness ...

 

[Log4Girlz]

Is that a serious question?

ok. er... because we don't know.
.

I am god. I created the universe and I am the being detailed in the abrahamic faiths.


What is your natural, default answer to this statement?

What is the natural default answer for most people?

The first question may well indeed be "Well gee Log4Girlz from my perspective you may very well be god". But most people would consider that answer quite ridiculous.

The default answer would be "No you are not until you prove otherwise". This is not an irrational statement and considering the claim, it really isn't much of an assumption. If you want to steadfastly claim that it is indeed an assumption, more power to you. Some people believe all "knowledge" is mere assumption, but in the real practical world, we must draw lines and boundaries as to what is accepted as knowledge.

 

[SquiddyCracker]

I'm not really sure that is true. Plenty of irrational, illogical concepts turned out to exist. Wave/particle duality for one, powered flight, consciousness ...

They're not really illogical /irrational though, they just don't necessarily vibe with our intuition.

 

[remist]

There are so many different religions that I find this sweeping statement quite irrational. Not every religion has a bearded, angry old man shouting from the skies.

What gods do you find more probable than the christian god?

 

[V_Arnold]

But they all attribute characteristics, tales, or behaviors to beings that cannot be evidenced except through the specific modes of communication they had chosen to use, like a (very human) holy text or mouthpiece, which is to be believed through...faith. If we choose to forsake evidence, we could believe nearly anything we put our minds to.

They really all do not. You are generalizing too much. It is a big brainwash already that all religions wants to destroy "critical thinking" and "reasoning" to "blind faith". Blind faith already is something that is considered even worse than, I do not know, stealing or worse. At this point, I am not even exaggerating.

What gods do you find more probable than the christian god?

I find the Christian God to be an artifical construct, created from fear, feed with fear, sustained with fear and violence. Atheists can argue whether it "exists" physicall or not, but it is a being that represents many bad deeds. And on a personal level, it has a smaller (imho smaller, christians might argue with me about this) positive potential as well for helping individuals with addictions and hopeless situations. I think that it all depends on personal preference, cause I could not relate to that too much.

Highly "probable" for me are the existence of "beings" that describe our existence as either:
a. People are like cells in the body of a higher being, the higher being experiencing this life through us, with us, by us, not "commanding" us in a direct sense
(Just like when we say "I am", we really are not, our billions and billions of cell are, then they are not, then they are again, and so on, and so on.)
b. The "Creator" of this particular plane started it with a thought, set out the rules or let the rules be, and then observes from the point of view of EVERYTHING how this unfolds. Which would allow for a "godless" experience if we go with the strict godlike figures
c. Beings exist simultaneously with us, but not on the same physical plane as we are able to percieve, and once we were able to make a connection with these planes, more or less, but as our collective consciousness became more rigid, it is no longer possible to perform certain things that would have otherwise been claimed to be easily done. Etc. We might rediscover all this with scientific progress, at which point it would no longer be considered bullshit, but it would be very embarassing for today's hardest atheists and theists as well, imho

There are many non-mainstream and several more famous religions/spiritual belief systems that have one of these elements, do not want you to do destroy your reasoning, and can be really good food for thought even for someone who otherwise just deals with only strictly materialist things in his/her everyday life. Dismissing these, for me, equals with throwing out the baby with the washwater.

 

[Log4Girlz]

I'm not really sure that is true. Plenty of irrational, illogical concepts turned out to exist. Wave/particle duality for one, powered flight, consciousness ...

Wave/particle duality was testable. Powered flight has been mastered by 4 classes of animal before humans (insects, reptiles, birds, bats) and I don't know what you are talking about with consciousness.

 

[Necromanti]

They really all do not. You are generalizing too much. It is a big brainwash already that all religions wants to destroy "critical thinking" and "reasoning" to "blind faith". Blind faith already is something that is considered even worse than, I do not know, stealing or worse. At this point, I am not even exaggerating.

I'm not really sure what you're arguing or what that has to do with what I was saying, however. Religions fall within certain frameworks of belief. That is what make them religions. If you wanted to argue for belief systems, then that's another matter. I also never said anything about religion destroying or favoring anything, so I would say you are exaggerating a tad. I don't think I've ever heard what you claim in society, unless you're talking about GAF (but even then...). I never said that religion was either inherently good or bad.

 

[Ashes]

I'm fine with the "default" position being either "doesn't exist" or "don't know". It's just a semantic issue I'm willing to skip, as either interpretation is functionally the same.

The God entity is nonetheless in the same category as leprechauns or moon kittens, unlike, say, Abraham Lincoln

why? Sometimes if a thing is explained then it is easier to dismiss it. Even if that thing is logically sound, and 'fits' so to speak, such as the materialists, who initially denied the big bang theory.

It is easy to say as a thiest, but I would place the idea of a initial creator above a cat on the moon. They are not analogous examples in my opinion. I suppose it's an easier pill to swallow for those who disbelieve if something as obviously fictitious as cat on the moon is used.

 

[Ashes]

I am god. I created the universe and I am the being detailed in the abrahamic faiths.


What is your natural, default answer to this statement?

What is the natural default answer for most people?

The first question may well indeed be "Well gee Log4Girlz from my perspective you may very well be god". But most people would consider that answer quite ridiculous.

The default answer would be "No you are not until you prove otherwise". This is not an irrational statement and considering the claim, it really isn't much of an assumption. If you want to steadfastly claim that it is indeed an assumption, more power to you. Some people believe all "knowledge" is mere assumption, but in the real practical world, we must draw lines and boundaries as to what is accepted as knowledge.

lol. You just deleted the second part of the post you're replying to. ha ha.

 

[Necromanti]

It is easy to say as a thiest, but I would place the idea of a initial creator above a cat on the moon. They are not analogous examples in my opinion. I suppose it's an easier pill to swallow for those who disbelieve if something as obviously fictitious as cat on the moon is used.

How would you place the idea that the universe had always existed in some state, for example, relative to those other concepts?

 

[Log4Girlz]

lol. You just deleted the second part of the post you're replying to. ha ha.

So our of curisoty what's your personal answer to my statement that I am the abrahamic god?

 

[hym]

how are 'some' athiests 99% certain that god doesn't exist

God as a humanly defined entity cannot exist because it's a logic paradox, it attempts to give you the illusion that it could solve the unknown and the unknowable yet all it does is introduce a middle man.

If God is omniscient then how is its omnipotence able to create free will, furthermore it has no free will so how is it omnipotent.

Now you can start chiseling away at it to get rid of the paradoxes but at that moment you admit you're creating something making the possibilities endless, the odds of finding the correct one and it caring for your achievement are dumb.

 

[Ashes]

How would you place the idea that the universe had always existed in some state, for example, relative to those other concepts?

Hard to say. Worth pondering and posing the question though, and not absently reducing it to rubble. But that's only my opinion.

It's hard to say what a reasonable person would do though. Apparently dismiss it outright.

 

[V_Arnold]

"If God is omniscient then how is its omnipotence able to create free will, furthermore it has no free will so how is it omnipotent."

I cringe so hard at the omnipotence/omnipresence linguistic bullshit, though. The only thing these two words prove is that it is very easy to create paradoxes. "If God can do everything, why cant he create a rock that even he cant move? HUH? WHAT ABOUT THAT, MAN?"

Paradoxes are fun, that is about it.

 

[Necromanti]

Hard to say. Worth pondering and posing the question though, and not absently reducing it to rubble. But that's only my opinion.

It's hard to say what a reasonable person would do though. Apparently dismiss it outright.

I'm a fan of the principle of parsimony, myself.

 

[Ashes]

So our of curisoty what's your personal answer to my statement that I am the abrahamic god?

Come on Log. Be reasonable.

 

[SquiddyCracker]

That's the thing though, a God in any shape doesn't add a single thing to the universe aside from validation for believers. If a great omnipotent being was necessary for the universe, I might believe it the same way I'm tentatively believing in the string theory.

Only it would still not be true, just as I cant with hand on heart say that the string theory is anything but neat.

But I don't hold the God entity in that position because it is as mentioned unnecessary.
When something is unnecessary, I would like to see some proof for it before I accept it as real.

 

[Log4Girlz]

God as a humanly defined entity cannot exist because it's a logic paradox, it attempts to give you the illusion that it could solve the unknown and the unknowable yet all it does is introduce a middle man.

If God is omniscient then how is its omnipotence able to create free will, furthermore it has no free will so how is it omnipotent.

Now you can start chiseling away at it to get rid of the paradoxes but at that moment you admit you're creating something making the possibilities endless, the odds of finding the correct one and it caring for your achievement are dumb.

Also something rarely considered is that if an omnipotent god exists, then really and truly anything must be technically possible. Kittens in the center of the moon, leprechauns dancing on neutron stars etc...because if god can do anything, who are you to say he wouldn't make these things happen?

Come on Log. Be reasonable.

So stating I am the abrahamic god is unreasonable? So you are assuming my statement rings hollow? Quite the assumption based on absolutely no evidence on your part.

 

[Ashes]

I'm a fan of the principle of parsimony, myself.

Have you heard what simplicio had to say on the matter?